It may be said that the House of Commons does not rule, it only elects the rulers.  But there must be something special about it to enable it to do that.  Suppose the Cabinet were elected by a London club, what confusion there would be, what writing and answering!  “Will you speak to So-and-So, and ask him to vote for my man?” would be heard on every side.  How the wife of A. and the wife of B. would plot to confound the wife of C. Whether the club elected under the dignified shadow of a queen, or without the shadow, would hardly matter at all; if the substantial choice was in them, the confusion and intrigue would be there too.  I propose to begin this paper by asking, not why the House of Commons governs well? but the fundamental—­almost unasked question—­how the House of Commons comes to be able to govern at all?

The House of Commons can do work which the quarter-sessions or clubs cannot do, because it is an organised body, while quarter-sessions and clubs are unorganised.  Two of the greatest orators in England—­ Lord Brougham and Lord Bolingbroke—­spent much eloquence in attacking party government.  Bolingbroke probably knew what he was doing; he was a consistent opponent of the power of the Commons; he wished to attack them in a vital part.  But Lord Brougham does not know; he proposes to amend Parliamentary government by striking out the very elements which make Parliamentary government possible.  At present the majority of Parliament obey certain leaders; what those leaders propose they support, what those leaders reject they reject.  An old Secretary of the Treasury used to say, “This is a bad case, an indefensible case.  We must apply our majority to this question.”  That secretary lived fifty years ago, before the Reform Bill, when majorities were very blind, and very “applicable”.  Nowadays, the power of leaders over their followers is strictly and wisely limited:  they can take their followers but a little way, and that only in certain directions.  Yet still there are leaders and followers.  On the Conservative side of the House there are vestiges of the despotic leadership even now.  A cynical politician is said to have watched the long row of county members, so fresh and respectable-looking, and muttered, “By Jove, they are the finest brute votes in Europe!” But all satire apart, the principle of Parliament is obedience to leaders.  Change your leader if you will, take another if you will, but obey No. 1 while you serve No. 1, and obey No. 2 when you have gone over to No. 2.  The penalty of not doing so, is the penalty of impotence.  It is not that you will not be able to do any good, but you will not be able to do anything at all.  If everybody does what he thinks right, there will be 657 amendments to every motion, and none of them will be carried or the motion either.